Hello All,

I'm wondering, has something like 'group design' of an RPG ever been tried on the Forge? On-line? Everyone free to contribute?

90% chance it'd become a real hodge-podge, but diamonds are compressed dead organic matter anyway, right?

If anyone's up for it, I'd like to know. Many a way to try it - heck, we could even use Universalis to build it. :)

It has been tried on this and other fora. The problem is always the same: nobody really owns responsibility for the design. As a result, as ideas diverge through discussion, membership and interest fall off as possibilities are ruled out; usually it trails off to end with a whimper.

Ah. Any links to old efforts, here or on other fora?

I can understand the dying with a whimper thing... it's to be expected, I guess. What if you have a deadline, or converging effect in the design anyway, to prevent just that?

Universalis (which I'm really into right now) has a 'scene' structure - so what if design was in 'scenes'? (Or in modules, whatever). The Universalis method also allows relatively easy transition into 'playing' and non-playing.

contracycle wrote: It has been tried on this and other fora. The problem is always the same: nobody really owns responsibility for the design. As a result, as ideas diverge through discussion, membership and interest fall off as possibilities are ruled out; usually it trails off to end with a whimper.

Yeah, I think James is on the right track with his suggestions. I think the most important thing to avoid the project just fading away is to have someone who is in charge of the project, authorised by the group to make final decisions and arbitrate any disputes.

Andrew Morris wrote: Yeah, I think James is on the right track with his suggestions. I think the most important thing to avoid the project just fading away is to have someone who is in charge of the project, authorised by the group to make final decisions and arbitrate any disputes.

Being done.

The Hive/Defector is being written in collabrative effort between several people, and yes it did involve much banter and discussion, however I'd like to point out that it is currently in Beta format and is almost ready for playtesting. Once we decided to get serious, we did indeed get serious about it.

Nothing is online thus far, it's currently being layed out and all that stuff, art is being done currently.

The group consists of people in the US, England, Germany, Sweden, Mexico and assorted other parts of the globe. All of us contributed ideas to the system, and a few are doing the art.

James has a good idea, however you'd want to make sure that these mini groups didn't conflict with each other. Having three or four groups instead of one large one can lead to massive errors in communication.

To date the largest problem we had as a group was my execution of my computer leaving me without the tools or the access to keep my domain online.

So, Tobias, are you willing to be the person responsible for making this happen? If so, and you get this going, I'd love to contribute.

The problem with collaboration is that most good game design is highly focused. As soon as you reach a point where no one person or group says "the buck stops here" you are setting yourself up for incoherency. That is not to say that the Forge can not be used to develop a game in concert, but someone has to be at the top keeping everything tied together and making sure that everything gets integrated.

For example, i would consider Tony's work on Capes (found here, here, here, here, here, here, and here to be highly collaborative. Tony, Sydney, I, and a number of other people hash out ideas and generally try to make Tony's game better. However, it is important that one person be in charge because a couple of steps back in the design process i really felt that the game should go in direction X while Tony really wanted direction Y. If no one had creative control and was able to say "yeah, your idea is ok, but we are still going to do it my way" then there is a good chance that my interest would have faded. However, even if i think that there is a better way to do things, Tony is the decision maker.

Now that roll of creative control could be taken up by a committee, and it would probably be fine. But if no one took that position you would not really have a unified design with a single purpose which i think is vital to getting a game finished.

That said, if you have an idea that you think would be fun to do up in committee the let's get to it. I am really enjoying being involved in Capes, i can see involvement in further development being a lot of fun.

Note: Capes is in no way owned by me, and it is entirely possible that Tony does not see development in the same light as me so he might not even consider it to be collaborative.

Thomas

Thomas, I agree. That's what I was talking about with one person being responsible for adjudication and final decision making. In a LARP I was involved in a while back, about half a dozen people had creative input, but there was one head honcho. As he put it, he alone possessed "The Foot." None of the rest of us had The Foot. We'd come up with ideas, debate, and argue them out. Sometimes we'd resolve the issue. When we didn't, The Foot would come down, meaning discussion was closed and the head guy would make a decision. It worked out well. So basically, I was asking if Tobias wanted to take on the power of The Foot and get something going.

I've noted two other instances of collaborative game construction on the Forge. The first is Jake Norwood talking about creating a space combat game:

Interesting Space Dogfights

And, from memory, Universalis (although it was created by Ralph and Mike) was adjusted after extensive feedback from playtesters. So that might count. I believe those discussions are still available at the very beginning of the Uni forum.

Tyrant wrote: you'd want to make sure that these mini groups didn't conflict with each other. Having three or four groups instead of one large one can lead to massive errors in communication.

jdrakeh wrote:
That is what project supervisors/leads are for - it's there job to act as a liason between the smaller groups and to keep all of them up to speed, making sure that each of the stays on the same page. Alternately, an actual liason position could be created to deal with inter-departmental schism.

I'm sure there are as many different ways to collaborate on-line as there are groups to try them. That having been said, are we all talking about the same thing when we say "collaboration"?

Thomas (LordSmerf) is quite right that Capes is being written very much as a collaborative effort. I wanted to make sure that I could actually put the vague notions in my mind into words that other people could understand, and I am humbled and grateful for how enthusiastic people have been both in forcing me to clarify my descriptions when they were lax or contradictory, and in showing me better ways to achieve my underlying goals. So I came to collaboration primarily as a way of enforcing and aiding communication.

By comparison, I think I see some folks here who want to create collaboration as a way to reduce individual workload, and some who want to create collaboration as a way to foster a creative community, and so forth.

These are all worthy goals, but they're not... you know... the same goal, and putting it all under the rubrik of "collaboration" might cause confusion the same way as having a hard-core Gamist and hard-core Narrativist talk about creating "a good story".

Tyrant wrote:
Isn't that a bit complicated?

and I'm not saying that your views are wrong.

hix wrote: I've noted two other instances of collaborative game construction on the Forge. The first is Jake Norwood talking about creating a space combat game:

Interesting Space Dogfights

Yeah, I'm with Thomas here. Personally, I think Tobias should have the right of first refusal (or acceptance, of course) as to whether he wants to be the group leader, since he's the one who started this whole thread.

Andrew Morris wrote: Yeah, I'm with Thomas here. Personally, I think Tobias should have the right of first refusal (or acceptance, of course) as to whether he wants to be the group leader, since he's the one who started this whole thread.

Hi guys, I'd like so much to get involved... is there a free room?

Wow, you go away to a festival for a couple of days, and see what happens.

I'm thrilled by the response. Since people've asked, and I believe in putting your money where your mouth is - yes, I will run this, and since people want a designated 'Foot' (which I like as much as anything), yes, I'll be that foot.

That said, I will mention I'll be a humble foot - I've got no designed games out there, and while I am no creative slouch, I harbor no illusions that my ideas are always 'better'. So I'll try to have as light a touch as possible.

What I'll try to do is:

1. Maintain a list of people working on the game.
2. Pump out weekly updates with requests for feedback.

Anything more than that should probably just go to my inbox for sorting, mixing and matching.

Before we spawn off a different thread about the actual game (if neccesary), I'd like to ask the potential participants a few question on 'how-to' collaborate and where we're going

1. Why would you like to join this project?
2. Do you already have something in mind you wish to contribute?
3. Are there any particulars about the amount of time you wish to spend, or any other items in your agenda that make participation limited in some way (note: this is probably a good thing)?
4. Which organisation-style would you prefer? Mass democracy and brainstorming with central write-up, modular designation of game 'bits' to smaller design teams, or any other style?

Anyone who thinks there's an additional good question to ask (anyone with more management or group-organisation skills than I is welcome to chime in), please do.

You can PM the answer to me or (preferrably) post it in this thread.

What I'm interested in is what the designers see as the added value of such group design. To me, they are short-chain feedback, sparring, a wider orientation on which games are fun and a possibilty to meld ideas together that normally wouldn't flow together in just one person's brain.

In other words - what would be cool, and beneficial, to design as a group?

I'll leave that question out there as I ponder the answer myself.

Thanks for everyone's input so far!

Tobias wrote: 1. Why would you like to join this project?
2. Do you already have something in mind you wish to contribute?
3. Are there any particulars about the amount of time you wish to spend, or any other items in your agenda that make participation limited in some way (note: this is probably a good thing)?
4. Which organisation-style would you prefer? Mass democracy and brainstorming with central write-up, modular designation of game 'bits' to smaller design teams, or any other style?

Tobias wrote: In other words - what would be cool, and beneficial, to design as a group?

Tobias wrote: 1. Why would you like to join this project?

Tobias wrote: 2. Do you already have something in mind you wish to contribute?

Tobias wrote: 3. Are there any particulars about the amount of time you wish to spend, or any other items in your agenda that make participation limited in some way (note: this is probably a good thing)?

Tobias wrote: 4. Which organisation-style would you prefer? Mass democracy and brainstorming with central write-up, modular designation of game 'bits' to smaller design teams, or any other style?

1. Why would you like to join this project?

2. Do you already have something in mind you wish to contribute?

3. Are there any particulars about the amount of time you wish to spend, or any other items in your agenda that make participation limited in some way (note: this is probably a good thing)?

4. Which organisation-style would you prefer? Mass democracy and brainstorming with central write-up, modular designation of game 'bits' to smaller design teams, or any other style?

I hope I'm not too late to get in on this, but it looks really fun.

1. Why would you like to join this project?

2. Do you already have something in mind you wish to contribute?

3. Are there any particulars about the amount of time you wish to spend, or any other items in your agenda that make participation limited in some way (note: this is probably a good thing)?

4. Which organisation-style would you prefer? Mass democracy and brainstorming with central write-up, modular designation of game 'bits' to smaller design teams, or any other style?

Sydney Freedberg wrote: I have a strong preference for clean, unified mechanics as opposed to lots of different mechanics for different aspects of the game ... I will lobby hard that there be a strong core mechanic with as few exceptions and special rules as possible

Sydney Freedberg wrote: For heaven's sake, don't break up into teams yet. You'll end up with a dozen unconnected mechanisms or bits of setting that don't fit together. At this early stage, mass collective brainstorming is the only way to go.

Jediblack wrote: Brainstorming first... then monarchy.

I know we are not yet to this point, but i wanted to throw out something for consideration. For the past two years i have been keenly fascinated by meta-mechanics. One, mentioned earlier, was the meta-hook/kicker/bang stuff that got kicked around in the Interesting Space Dogfights thread. Something that i have always been ever more fascinated by (but have never really had a chance to explore) are situational mechanics. Specifically, mandated seating arrangement, allowing only 10 dice when 13 are needed. Using real-world time as a factor for in-game bonuses, etc. So basically, i would really love to have an oppurtunity to hash out some new/innovative/cool meta mechanics.

Other than that, i have a fairly good grasp of dice generated probability curves and i am willing to GM test sessions of just about anything (once we get to that point).

Thomas

First step is definitely to have create a roadmap, so we know where we're going.

Excellent.

Due to a little illness on my part (took yesterdayafternoon and this morning off), I'm a bit swamped at work right now. So I'll not start a new thread just let and let this one sit out on the forum one more day.

In the meantime, I'm glad to see everyone's initial reaction as to which process is desired (brainstorming first, anarchy leading to monarchy) matches my own feelings.

I myself am not leaning to a mathematical crunch-fest, nor a thick book. while a large team would make it easier to churn out more material, it would also mean more coordination required to get every tested, checked, and agreed upon. Rather, I'd like to use the brains involved to make a sleek elegant core of, say, merely three brilliant ideas (which one person could never think of), and then test the tell out of it with the people-resources we have.

As to setting and system - my first thought would be to either pick a setting that's really hard to do and abstract (requiring lots of interesting solutions and a novel system), or to pick a fairly generic setting, and turn the way the system deals with it upside down and inside out.

Also, for those about to brainstorm: first rule of brainstorming is to NOT be critical. If you see an idea you don't like, keep a lid on commenting on it at first - or try to run it forward in a way you think will work (without ignoring the initial idea). In round 2 you get to be critical.

I'm not going to sign every post with 'thanks', so assume I'm grateful for your cooperation from here on.

Also, we should, at some point, discuss how this puppy's going to get distributed/published.

Only a thought... Couldn't we ask for a forum here at the Forge? So at least threads will be all in one place.

Jediblack wrote: Only a thought... Couldn't we ask for a forum here at the Forge? So at least threads will be all in one place.

Tobias wrote: Also, for those about to brainstorm: first rule of brainstorming is to NOT be critical.

I hereby sign onto the Morris Manifesto and proclaim my undying fealty to Tobias, our Foot.

As for the "Space Dogfights" thread that people cited, a few thoughts on why that worked (or almost worked -- I don't think an actual game exists as yet): 1) a strong leader and 2) an engaging "high concept" that got everyone going. I think it's coming time to work on (2), which is probably a separate thread; but in the interests of (1), I defer to Tobias on that.

I also suspect we probably want some strong setting-and-situation combination for which we can then build mechanics, as opposed to a cool mechanic which we then find a situation and setting for*. But I could be wrong; it's one of my hobbies.

EDIT: *Not to diss LordSmerf/Thomas's thoughts on situational and metagame mechanics; they sound cool -- and precisely the kind of thing I wouldn't think of, which is the value-added of a collaborative effort in the first place.

I undersign too.

Wow. A manifest that gives me powers. I undersign as well and will strive to not use them. :)

At least I've run brainstorming sessions before.... so I will start off a new thread, brainstorming on setting and system. This thread I'll keep for meta-topics such as organisation of the development, for now.

Let´s see what develops!

Is this the forum where anyone who wants to get involved should say so, and agree to the rules for doing so, then?

Signed on to the so named Morris Manifesto.